Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you asking me a question or a point? I am not sure....
You said more gears doesn't mean improved mpg. Rather than howl in protest, I posted links to examples that show more gears, along with computer software, leads to improved fuel economy.
You are missing the point that "Bob" is trying to make so carefully. The transmission doesn't affect the fuel consumption of the ENGINE. But the gear ratios do affect the fuel economy of the vehicle. Bob should concede that.
He is working hard to defend Chrysler's "buzzy" engines by splitting hairs and challenging the use of English words. When someone says an engine is buzzing no one is saying is sounds like bees. They mean it has too much vibration or is otherwise not smooth.
I don't believe it matters one bit how difficult or costly it is for Chrysler to put smoother or quieter engines in their vehicles. Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Ford, and many other makers seem to have less difficulty with this. I don't care if it costs Chrysler $500M to fix it. It is their problem and until they fix problems like this buyers won't choose their vehicles. Consumers that want a car without a buzzy engine have many to choose from. So they obviously are willing to pay for it.
Not splitting hairs...it is fact of engineering definition. If that is not acceptable, I am wasting my time. 4 cyl engines are naturally unbalanced in an inline configuration. If you have no wish to live in the real world and have real answers, please let me know. I have a business to run and was merely obliging a friend I owed a favor to by posting in this asylum.
Not splitting hairs...it is fact of engineering definition. If that is not acceptable, I am wasting my time. 4 cyl engines are naturally unbalanced in an inline configuration. If you have no wish to live in the real world and have real answers, please let me know. I have a business to run and was merely obliging a friend I owed a favor to by posting in this asylum.
Bob: "waaaa I'm a big baby. I'm crying because I work for a half assed company."
You can split hairs all you want but other manufacturers are able to provide a superior drive train at similar price points. All you're doing is trying to redistribute the blame and failing miserably.
You sir, are a liar and an ignorant consumer.... I do NOT work for Chrysler. I have had my own consulting firm since 1996 counting Honda, Daimler Truck, Navistar, Toyota, Isuzu, Ferrari, BMW, Citroen, Peugot, Fiat, and others as longtime clients. When you can come close to my experience fixing problems for OEM's you MAY gain some credibility. At this point you have none.
Feel free to live in your own alternate reality where you are king, lord, and master while the rest of us work in the real world. You are the perfect example of a consumer....defined as someone that consumes anything without care or understanding.
Good luck gettinng what you wish for. You have no relevence to me.
Now I have completed my obligation, I bid all of you adieu.
I've already got what I wish for but it sounds like you're a bit butt hurt. BTW, if I consumed everything without care or understanding, I would be driving a Chrysler. But having my care and understanding I choose to go with a superior product.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, Chrysler and GM have no connections to the past, all of the management is gone. They are in name only. Not much loyalty left from this blogger. I have owned the original Chrysler 300C back in 1957 I believe, and a beautiful '57 Crown Imperial with red leather interior and black paint, and my grandfather always bought a new Chrysler each year after he got paid for his crops.
I wanted to ask him about the Challenger not "competing" with the Mustang and Camero (which IMHO they were competitors in the Muscle Car Era and still are...) but you have run him off so I guess "no soup for Mitch".
I wanted to ask him about the Challenger not "competing" with the Mustang and Camero (which IMHO they were competitors in the Muscle Car Era and still are...) but you have run him off so I guess "no soup for Mitch".
LOL the only way challenger will be able to compete with the camaro and mustang is if it goes on a diet and becomes 400 lbs lighter but on the other hand the challenger will be more sought after because of low production numbers. plus as it sits the mustang kicks butt in it's new 5.0 GT form and for 32-33K is a bargin over the challenger and camaro and fasted than them too so it's a win from price stand point and a performace standpoint for ford...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
